Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
Personally I think this reputation system is much better than the user blocking system, because that certainly did not improve the attitude of users. As matter of fact I think the blocking system is not needed anymore, because you are not able to rate the ones you block and make them behave.

EXACTLY my point. We have crossed over into censorship, if someone says something you don't like, agree with or in short BEHAVE to your standards .... I need say no more. Fortunately, i planto be very sparing in my votes.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Censorship requires the ability to actually censor.  We can not 'suppress or delete' anything.  All we can do is offer our opinion, via the vote system, on what we believe are good and bad posts.

Quoting Rander:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
People have already demonstrated that they will cast a negative vote because someone dares to voice his opinion, not because of any kind of attack, bigotry or whatever. They simply don't like what is said. They are now using the reputation system as a form of BULLYING. It is really sad.

Now, I have to disagree with you. What people say is - in my mind - of no importance as far as reputation points go - it is how they say it that matters!

The above exactly point out what is positive and negative about the new system. We are only able to cast our opinion on what and how things are said. And yes it really is sad and regrettable if the system is abused to pass judgement on users themselves, but I think and hope sanity will win in the long run.

OK, time to make a few points.  I trust everybody will keep an open mind and actually think about what I say, rather than have a knee-jerk reaction.

I took a self-imposed vacation back at the beginning of October because I was tired of the personal attacks on anyone who dared to have a different opinion on anything, and by a certain group on Skip and on me.  I do not excuse myself from contributing because I responded in kind too many times myself. What really surprised me however, was that the sniping, personal remarks, and hatred (yes, I said hatred because that's how it appeared to me), if anything, got worse! 

I know a little something about discussion groups, as I've participated in a couple of Fidonet groups for nearly twenty years, since before the internet was even around.  In that time, we had several moderators, each with a different style of moderating, and when we had a couple hundred regulars, moderating worked.  In that time, a number of users who abused their access were banned.  That worked as long as other users, sysops, and feed providers all worked together to deny them access.  Today, however, we have some of those same banned users defying their ban and posting anyway.  Fidonet has almost died out except in Eastern Europe and Russia, so there is nobody around here to enforce the rules.  But even in there were, because of the internet, it wouldn't work.  There are simply too many ways to get in.

Why did I bring all that up?  Because we have essentially the same problem here.  Those who cause the problems have not been deterred by pleas from others users to cease and desist, and Ken has now introduced two methods in the hopes of embarassing them into ceasing.  This new reputation system may or may not work -- its too early to say either way.  But what if it doesn't?  Then what?  At this point, everybody is running around looking over their shoulder to see who is watching them.  We've created a police state in which everyone is encouraged to inform on his neighbors for every perceived slight or rule violation. 

Persoanlly, I hate censorship, in any shape or form.  This whole situation smacks of censorship to me.  I much prefer having to defend my opinions by whatever means of argument I have to use.  I believe we all have the right to stand up and say what we think, without having to worry about who's going to turn us in for saying something somebody doesn't like.  If you are easily offended, or can't keep up in a discussion, or don't have the backbone to defend your position then you shouldn't participate. And, if you can't police your own behavior, none of this other stuff is going to do it, either.  That's just a fact of life.

This same idea can be applied to the rules as well.  There is a certain group here who has done their level best to impose their will on the rest rules wise.  The rules are here, first and foremost, to serve the online database.  NOT to satisfy anybody's particular preferences or foibles.  There have been entirely too many changes made of late that have nothing to do with anything but forcing personal preference of a small minority on the majority via the online database rules.

Is this new system going to work?  I don't know.  But I'm a cynic, and a skeptic, and I don't think human nature is going to change much just because of some new reputation system.  You can't expect people from 20 different cultures and 50 different countries to agree on much of anything, especially when they don't ALL know the ins and outs of the other guy's culture.  I would like to be proved wrong, but I doubt it will happen.



PS:  Thanks to those who asked where I had gone and especially to the ones who privately asked me to come back.  It was appreciated.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Censorship, by definition, means pre-screening (and possibly removal) of communication.

There is no such thing here, so I don't see how this can be thought of as censorship.

There is no such thing as total free speech. Even the most liberal democracies have rules defining what you may and may not say. You can say anything, but you may be held responsible for what you say.

So far, the mere mention of the reputation system has had an effect. What will the long term effects be? Only time will tell. But so far, I like what I see.

To be fair, censorship is also accomplished by intimidation, and fear of reprisal.  And, I am very much aware that one is responsible for what one says.  You don't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater, for instance, unless there really is one.  The point I was trying to make is that we should all have the personal honor and integrity to avoid such behavior, and to back down when we do step over the line, without having to have the threat of sanctions forcing us to behave a certain way.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
This same idea can be applied to the rules as well.  There is a certain group here who has done their level best to impose their will on the rest rules wise.  The rules are here, first and foremost, to serve the online database.  NOT to satisfy anybody's particular preferences or foibles.  There have been entirely too many changes made of late that have nothing to do with anything but forcing personal preference of a small minority on the majority via the online database rules.

Ah, John is back, and he hasn't changes his style (accusations, generalizations etc.).

Could you please elaborate

Who belongs to this ominous "minority" ?
Which rules you are talking about ?
How do you deduce the "fact" that the majority was overruled (have there been polls) ?

As long as you don't answer the questions, I assume all you want to do is stir up trouble, which the new reputation system hopefully will deal with easily.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Next up for release by popular demand is a new website feature which will let users purchase and print a voucher for a full DVD Profiler registration.  It will be live by this weekend.

Just in time for that last minute holiday gift 

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
To be fair, censorship is also accomplished by intimidation, and fear of reprisal.  And, I am very much aware that one is responsible for what one says.  You don't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater, for instance, unless there really is one.  The point I was trying to make is that we should all have the personal honor and integrity to avoid such behavior, and to back down when we do step over the line, without having to have the threat of sanctions forcing us to behave a certain way.

I agree, John, that we should all have the personal honor and integrity to which you refer.  The problem is, and I believe the reason the reputation system is needed, is that many of the users don't think their behavior violates honor and integrity.  They seem very capable of rationalizing their behavior as either (1) in response to someone else's bad manners or (2) to teach the other guy how to behave.  I don't believe these people are really in the dark about their own behavior, rather that they think they don't have to follow the same code of behavior they want to enforce upon others.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
They're for gifts.  If you know someone who collects DVDs and doesn't have DVD Profiler yet, you can buy a registration for them.  You get a pretty voucher to print/email to the recipient. 

They receive the gift, thank you profusely for your generosity and good taste, then visit our site, enter the voucher ID, and receive their registration key, program download, and new account, as needed.

Thanks Ken. This sounds great.